AARON J. WALKER, ESQ.

In the

Appellant/Cross-Appellee COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS

v. No. 02328

STATE OF MARYLAND, ET AL. September Term, 2016

Appellees

APPELLANT WALKERS EMERGENCY MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT HIS

APPELLANTS BRIEF DUE TO THE EMERGENCE OF NEW AUTHORITY

NOW COMES Appellant Aaron J. Walker, Esq.,1 and files this Appellant Walkers

Motion to Supplement his Appellants Brief Due to the Emergence of New Authority. He

states the following:

1. Mr. Walker is seeking expedited consideration because an issue arose close

to oral argument on January 3, 2018.

2. The instant case involves (in part) a challenge to Marylands harassment

laws, MD CODE Crim. L. 3-803 and 3-805. These statutes include a prohibition on speech

and actions that alarms or annoys another (3-803 and 3-805(b)(1)) or inflicts emotional

distress on a minor (3-805(b)(2)). Mr. Walker has argued that both laws are

unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Briefing has been closed.

3. On November 30, 2017, the Illinois Supreme Court struck down that states

stalking and cyberstalking statutes on First Amendment grounds in State v. Relerford, 2017

1
Mr. Walker refers to himself throughout this filing in the third person for stylistic reasons
and in order to de-personalize this case.
1
IL 121094 (2017). Mr. Walker learned about this decision on December 4, 2017, and

immediately realized that it would provide useful guidance to this court as persuasive

authority. He therefore moves that he be allowed to supplement his brief to aid this court

in reaching an appropriate conclusion and has submitted a Proposed Supplemental

Appellants Brief simultaneously with this motion.

4. As stated in the proposed brief, the statutes in question are very similar to the

statutes challenged in the instant case. Like 3-805(b)(2), they prohibit the infliction of

emotional distress, and, further, alarm is sufficient to meet the definition of emotional

distress making it similar to 3-803 and 3-805(b)(1) in that respect. Further, both the

Illinois statutes and 3-803(b) and 3-805(d) have a section that creates an exception for

some protected expression. Based on these similarities, Mr. Walker argues in the proposed

brief that Relerford supports the contention that Marylands statutes are content-based

restrictions on speech, that must be subjected to the strict scrutiny standard. Further,

Relerford rejected some of the same arguments the State is making in this casenamely

that Marylands statutes can be saved under the true threat doctrine or as prohibiting speech

integral to criminal conduct. Finally, the overbreadth analysis was fatal in Relerford, and

is fully applicable to the instant case. The proposed brief expands on these points.

5. Mr. Walker also notes that the additional briefing is not long, clocking in at

only [n] wordsless than a typical reply brief. Mr. Walker used a white cover because

there is no rule on supplemental briefing setting a color for the cover.

6. Mr. Walker equally believes that the State should have a chance to respond

to these arguments in writing, prior to the hearing on January 3, 2018. In accommodation

2
of the Christmas holiday, Mr. Walker proposes that any response brief be due on or about

December 29, 2018, two business days before the oral argument on January 3, 2018. Mr.

Walker believes that such brief should be limited to 3,900 words.

WHEREFORE, this Court should accept Mr. Walkers Proposed Supplemental Brief filed

simultaneously with this motion, and grant to the state until December 29, 2018 to file any

responsive brief, and grant all other relief that is appropriate.

[Wednesday, July 19, 2016] Respectfully submitted,

Aaron J. Walker, Esq. (Va Bar# 48882)

P.O. Box 3075
Manassas, Virginia 20108
Phone: (703) 216-0455 (no fax)
AaronJW72@gmail.com

CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT AND COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 8-112

1. This document contains [2,786] words, excluding the parts of the document
exempted from the word count by Rule 8-503.

2. This document complies with the font, spacing, and type size requirements
stated in Rule 8-112. Specifically this document was typed in Times New Roman, 13-point
font.

3
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on [July 19, 2017,] I served copies of the Appellants Brief on the State
by Alexis Rohde, Esq., Office of the Attorney General, 200 St. Paul Place, 20th Floor,
Baltimore, Maryland 21202, and Mr. and Mrs. Kimberlin at 8100 Beech Tree Road,
Bethesda, Maryland 20817.

4
AARON J. WALKER, ESQ. In the

Appellant/Cross-Appellee COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS

v. No. 02328

STATE OF MARYLAND, ET AL. September Term, 2016

Appellees

ORDER GRANTING APPELLANTS WALKERS EMERGENCY MOTION TO

SUPPLEMENT HIS APPELLANTS BRIEF

Upon consideration of the Appellant Walkers Motion to Supplement his

Appellants Brief Due to the Emergence of New Authority, and any filing in opposition or

support thereto, it is this _________ day of , 2017, hereby

ORDERED that Appellant Walkers Motion to Supplement his Appellants Brief

Due to the Emergence of New Authority is hereby GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED that the Proposed Supplemental Appellants Brief filed by Mr. Walker

is hereby accepted; and it is further

ORDERED that the State has until December 29, 2017, to file any responsive brief,

if they should choose to do so, that such responsive brief shall contain no more than 3,900

words, excluding the parts of the brief ordinarily excluded from that count, and that such

brief otherwise comply with the rules applicable to ordinary appellees briefs.
__________________________________________
Judges, Court of Special Appeals